4 ms·

Kennedy's deadline: "by the end of the decade" was crucial. It became "the president's deadline" and everyone rallied to fulfil it. A human Mars mission now is

by iwwr 11y ago

Kennedy's deadline: "by the end of the decade" was crucial. It became "the president's deadline" and everyone rallied to fulfil it. A human Mars mission now is comparatively less difficult than the challenge that Apollo faced, with far superior technology, knowledge and funding. NASA has become a constituency-driven project rather than mission-driven. Mind you, it's doing great stuff still with the robotic exploration program, but undertaking a deep-space human mission involves the kind of determination a bureaucracy on autopilot is just not capable of. NASA is also more than anything a creature of the President and could respond to such a challenge once more, given the chance.

maxerickson 11y ago
Rocket fuel hasn't changed any.
oberstein 11y ago
Any goal by the President must be fulfilled within 8 years at most, otherwise there's no chance. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_outpost_%28NASA%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_outpost_%28NASA%29 initiated by Bush and killed by Obama. Greater than any technological or Presidential initiative challenge is the challenge of culture and media. Human lives matter a whole lot more now than they did during the Apollo missions, and a disaster resulting in the deaths of astronauts is the worst thing that can happen to NASA. As long as it is subject to public scrutiny and criticism that affects its budget and goals, it will continue in the fashion of the medical industry -- accepting all the consequences of do-nothing neglect instead of doing something that carries the risk of the deaths of a few individuals. In the medical industry, hundreds of deaths some of which could have been averted with not-yet-FDA-approved surgeries or drugs; in the space industry, the always looming threat of an extinction-level asteroid or other existential threats.
- andars 11y ago
  Not sure about this. The Apollo program itself lasted through 3 presidents and for 11 years.
  - Consultant32452 11y ago
    I think the key difference is that the Apollo program was ridiculously well supported by the populous and mass media. I casually follow what's going on with NASA and honestly I think I heard about Bush's lunar outpost thing one time.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
> "NASA has become a constituency-driven project rather than mission-driven." NASA manned spaceflight has, which is distinguished from unmanned spaceflight, which doesn't have the same problem. This is because the propulsive force of the Apollo program was primarily LBJ, who was a master politician. He made the Apollo program a constituency-driven project by wheeling and dealing in congress, to great effect. But those deals outlived the Apollo program and LBJ as well. They twisted NASA manned spaceflight and resulted in the mis-step of the Shuttle program and the diminished capabilities and high costs of the post Apollo era.
troutwine 11y ago
It's worth keeping in mind that a lunar landing was considered technically feasible in a relatively short timespan by NASA planners _before_ the Kennedy speech. All they needed was the cash, otherwise the timescale would stretch as cheaper lift vehicles and techniques were invented (perhaps into the 1980s, I've read). Kennedy acknowledges this reality in the speech: "accelerating the existing space program". Compare that to a Mars landing today. Here in 2015 we have many more unsolved problems than the lunar landing planners did in 1957. How do you cope with radiation? What about long-term nutrition? Gradual loss of vision due to microgravity and loss of skeletal mass? Psychological issues? I sincerely doubt that these problems are "comparatively less difficult than the challenge that Apollo faced". Apollo's key areas of advancement were in manufacturing and spaceflight control. Life-support was disposable and mission durations were short enough to make solar flares unlikely and skeletal degradation very slight. While it's true that we have far greater manufacturing and control technology than we did in the 60s that's only a small subset of the total technology we're going to have to invent to get more than corpses to Mars.
- euyyn 11y ago
  > Gradual loss of vision due to microgravity I'm interested on this, as I'd never heard of it before. Can you tell more about it?
  - iwwr 11y ago
    In microgravity fluids get redistributed throughout the body. The upper body and head get comparatively more (as opposed to normal gravity), which causes immune problems (swollen sinuses) and increased pressure in the eye and blood vessels around it, sometimes headaches and other issues. Microgravity is not a must for the Mars trip, however.
  - troutwine 11y ago
    Sure! It's been under active investigation by NASA for about eight years now: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1038.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experime... We're fairly sure we understand the mechanism--there's an experiment ongoing to confirm now, especially with regard to Commander Scott Kelly and his year-long mission on the ISS--but we're not entirely sure what to do about it if we're right. We're pretty well obligated for the next fifty years--give or take--to microgravity environments for long-duration spaceflights for lack of research into spinning toruses or tether systems. Microgravity is a tough environment for a human to live in, physically.
eevilspock 11y ago
The only reason it happened was because we were in a race with the Russians. > By the time the SEI reached Congress, its price tag—conservatively ballparked at an eye-popping $450 billion—alarmed key members of Congress, who spiked the initiative altogether. If China were preparing for a Mars mission, you bet the anti-NASA Republicans would suddenly do a 180. (I don't know where I stand on a manned Mars mission, but I do know it shouldn't be determined by kindergarten politics.)
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Then thank God for CNSA! Can we please have another space race (but without a cold war this time)?

by iwwr 11y ago

maxerickson 11y ago

Rocket fuel hasn't changed any.

oberstein 11y ago

Any goal by the President must be fulfilled within 8 years at most, otherwise there's no chance. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_outpost_%28NASA%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_outpost_%28NASA%29 initiated by Bush and killed by Obama. Greater than any technological or Presidential initiative challenge is the challenge of culture and media. Human lives matter a whole lot more now than they did during the Apollo missions, and a disaster resulting in the deaths of astronauts is the worst thing that can happen to NASA. As long as it is subject to public scrutiny and criticism that affects its budget and goals, it will continue in the fashion of the medical industry -- accepting all the consequences of do-nothing neglect instead of doing something that carries the risk of the deaths of a few individuals. In the medical industry, hundreds of deaths some of which could have been averted with not-yet-FDA-approved surgeries or drugs; in the space industry, the always looming threat of an extinction-level asteroid or other existential threats.

andars 11y ago
Not sure about this. The Apollo program itself lasted through 3 presidents and for 11 years.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  I think the key difference is that the Apollo program was ridiculously well supported by the populous and mass media. I casually follow what's going on with NASA and honestly I think I heard about Bush's lunar outpost thing one time.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

> "NASA has become a constituency-driven project rather than mission-driven." NASA manned spaceflight has, which is distinguished from unmanned spaceflight, which doesn't have the same problem. This is because the propulsive force of the Apollo program was primarily LBJ, who was a master politician. He made the Apollo program a constituency-driven project by wheeling and dealing in congress, to great effect. But those deals outlived the Apollo program and LBJ as well. They twisted NASA manned spaceflight and resulted in the mis-step of the Shuttle program and the diminished capabilities and high costs of the post Apollo era.

troutwine 11y ago

It's worth keeping in mind that a lunar landing was considered technically feasible in a relatively short timespan by NASA planners _before_ the Kennedy speech. All they needed was the cash, otherwise the timescale would stretch as cheaper lift vehicles and techniques were invented (perhaps into the 1980s, I've read). Kennedy acknowledges this reality in the speech: "accelerating the existing space program". Compare that to a Mars landing today. Here in 2015 we have many more unsolved problems than the lunar landing planners did in 1957. How do you cope with radiation? What about long-term nutrition? Gradual loss of vision due to microgravity and loss of skeletal mass? Psychological issues? I sincerely doubt that these problems are "comparatively less difficult than the challenge that Apollo faced". Apollo's key areas of advancement were in manufacturing and spaceflight control. Life-support was disposable and mission durations were short enough to make solar flares unlikely and skeletal degradation very slight. While it's true that we have far greater manufacturing and control technology than we did in the 60s that's only a small subset of the total technology we're going to have to invent to get more than corpses to Mars.

euyyn 11y ago
> Gradual loss of vision due to microgravity I'm interested on this, as I'd never heard of it before. Can you tell more about it?
- iwwr 11y ago
  In microgravity fluids get redistributed throughout the body. The upper body and head get comparatively more (as opposed to normal gravity), which causes immune problems (swollen sinuses) and increased pressure in the eye and blood vessels around it, sometimes headaches and other issues. Microgravity is not a must for the Mars trip, however.
- troutwine 11y ago
  Sure! It's been under active investigation by NASA for about eight years now: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1038.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experime... We're fairly sure we understand the mechanism--there's an experiment ongoing to confirm now, especially with regard to Commander Scott Kelly and his year-long mission on the ISS--but we're not entirely sure what to do about it if we're right. We're pretty well obligated for the next fifty years--give or take--to microgravity environments for long-duration spaceflights for lack of research into spinning toruses or tether systems. Microgravity is a tough environment for a human to live in, physically.

eevilspock 11y ago

The only reason it happened was because we were in a race with the Russians. > By the time the SEI reached Congress, its price tag—conservatively ballparked at an eye-popping $450 billion—alarmed key members of Congress, who spiked the initiative altogether. If China were preparing for a Mars mission, you bet the anti-NASA Republicans would suddenly do a 180. (I don't know where I stand on a manned Mars mission, but I do know it shouldn't be determined by kindergarten politics.)

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Then thank God for CNSA! Can we please have another space race (but without a cold war this time)?